Dems' drive to retake House falters

Nancy Pelosi has spent much of the past two years proclaiming that Democrats had a great shot at reclaiming the House and returning the speaker’s gavel to her hands.

But her drive to regain the majority for Democrats is on the verge of a complete collapse. Democrats are expected to pick up five seats at best — a fraction of the 25 they need. On the eve of the election, some party officials are privately worried that Democrats might even lose ground and drop one or two seats to the Republican majority.

Text Size

What to watch: Senate, House races

It would mark an epic failure for a party that has a legitimate shot at keeping the presidency and the Senate on Tuesday. The inability of House Democrats to pick off a good number of seats from one of the most unpopular House majorities in modern history will cause a lot of soul-searching in the party come Wednesday.

So Democrats are already doing their postmortems on a House election cycle gone awry. What they’ll find in the political autopsy is Republican dominance in redistricting that created a GOP friendly map, a Medicare argument that didn’t totally pan out and an incumbent president who just wasn’t as popular as when he ran four years ago. They’ll also have to come to terms with the fact that they still can’t overcome the Republican advantage in campaign spending.

POLITICO interviewed nearly two dozen of the top strategists, pollsters, ad makers, outside group operatives and party officials from both sides of the aisle who were intimately involved with the 2012 election, asking them to sketch out why the Democratic majority push fell short. In many cases, sources were granted anonymity in order to speak candidly about their assessments.

Here’s POLITICO’s look at why House Republicans will own the majority for another two years.

The Obama factor

The president may well win reelection, but there’s little question he hasn’t had the same kind of top-of-the-ticket pull demonstrated four years ago.

Unlike in 2008, when Barack Obama’s national numbers helped lift up Democratic congressional candidates across the map, the president has had far less impact this time around. And for the Democrats in conservative districts in the South and Rust Belt, Obama’s presence on the ballot has been more hurt than help.

That dynamic, perhaps more than any other, Democrats say, kept them from stirring up the kind of wave conditions they needed to stage a House takeover this year. Races that would have drifted in the Democrats’ direction four years ago required far more of a push this time.

“There was a wave that was supporting us in many different ways in 2008, and obviously this was a very different election,” said Paul Maslin, a Democratic pollster.

Obama’s poor first debate performance also caused a downdraft for vulnerable House Democrats.

Just days prior to the debate, Democrats held a 48 percent to 45 percent lead over Republicans in a National Public Radio poll of the generic congressional ballot. Now, Republicans are holding a small lead in the RealClearPolitics average of generic ballot polls.

Part of the Democrats' problem is the idiots they put in leadership positions. Pelosi is the 21st-Century Marie Antoinette (and, no, I don't wish for her beheading). Hoyer is an ass, and don't get me started on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

The House of Representatives is supposed to be the People's House. It's the most accurate representation of which party and which policies the people trust to tackle the problems facing our country. While I would like to interpret the GOP's retention of House control as a mandate for my party and our policies, I'm afraid that all it will really confirm is that the electorate recognizes Republicans are less crazy/incompetent/out-of-touch/corrupt than the Dems.

The real danger to America is not gay Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a filthy muslim sodomite like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of a gay Obama presidency than to restore the necessary,commonsense ,Godliness and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a creature for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr.gay Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the gay fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. “The Republic can survive a gay Obama, who is, after all, merely a gay fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

What a pathetic article. Congress was unpopular before the Republicans took back congress. Republicans were sent to congress to STOP the democrats and that is what they did. MORE Republicans will win in order to REVERSE the MARXIST and SOCIALIST policies this radical administration has subjected to an unsuspecting public. Obama has ALWAYS been a joke. He is a fraud, a huckster, a jive talker, and now America sees him and his ilk for what they are. The reason why it will be a LANDSLIDE for Romney is because Obama is a failure.

Of course it has everything to do with GOP tactics and money. It has absolutely nothing to do with an increasing section of the electorate that detests being called racists every week by Democrat politicians, including Pelosi.

The problem in the House is that the establishment is still in charge. It doesn't matter if it is R or D. We need a sober, fiscally responsible leadership. There is a groundswell in this country that the elites (both R and D) don't understand. We will get there. And once again, Politico has it bass ackwards.

The dems have done themselves some real damage. They are control freaks that want to rule every aspect of ones lives. They have abused their offices for their own gain while recklessly spending money that is not there.

And how exactly will we pay off the bills without increasing revenue? I agree spending should be cut or at the very list increases should be capped but Republicans aren't proposing spending cuts or effective ways to actually pay off the national debt (NO Republican in the last 40 years has!!!). Spending increases will still be here. They'll just be shifted to the military (i.e. keeping a war budget in times of peace is stupid when, as you say, we are broke). On top of it they want to cut taxes more??? How will that help? That has only ever lead to larger debt.

Anyone that is serious about resolving the national debt would cut spending and increase taxes to put the country on an actual path out of this mess that has been in the making for 40 years (with a brief pause during the Clinton era)